From what I know, trade with China and other less developed countries is often unfair against those countries rather than against the more developed countries. Clearly, these other countries rely much more or the US than the US does on them which doesn't really put them in the position to say no. I do kinda agree with your point that regardless of how you vote you are probably voting for your own benefit though. My previous statement was beyond exaggerated generalisation. It reminds me of some interesting conversations I had with a friend lately. His philosophy essentially is everything we ever do is for our personal benefit, even helping people out and getting nothing in return. The reasoning in that case is, we do it because it makes us feel good. It kinda makes sense biologically speaking but it's still a pretty flawed idea if you ask me. Sorry for taking a tangent here but it's been on my mind and it's interesting nonetheless.
Wait... People still buy into the illusion of choice that is the two party system??? We've now gone full retard mode. God Bless the US. All politicians are wonderful people, Democrat and Republicans. It doesn't matter who you vote for, they all care about you deeply and just want to make America a better place!
we went over this already, the illusion of choice isn't in the two party system, that is a genuine dichotomy with roots in psychology. Word what you are trying to communicate more carefully because polotics isn't a joke
Haha, politics amirite? Anyways, have you guys saved any gamer girl feet pics of late? I, uh, need a few more haha
https://gamerdvr.com/gamer/xxandrith/video/74090829 4v4 marina derivative that will never get forged, but it's designed I'm making a 2v2 version that will definitely get forged
OOOOHHHH it feels good to be back! @Soldat Du Christ Love and Selflessness aren't the same thing, nor does the introduction of such a conflated concept into a relationship founded on a deep disagreement in value systems lead to productive, positive growth in the long run. If I detest a woman's political leanings, and have identified the root philosophical issue in her choice of such leanings, then me being 'selfless' and 'loving' her for her mistakes is only going to lead to personal pain when those leanings are made manifest in her actions and feelings, usually as a direct, though implicit response to my own selflessness. If, instead, she chooses to resent me for my views, or I for hers, it's just as wrong to remain out of a 'selfless love'. It's a dumb policy. As to the alchemical relationship between Order and Chaos, these two concepts don't really exist 'in nature'. We recognize similarity, and *can* call it order - we recognize dissimilarities, and *can* call it chaos. They are not two primordial forcers, except as a mythological representation of the basic logical processes we are capable of making our brains run. Note, also, that Order and Chaos are concepts related to relationships within contexts of a great quantity of elements; order refers to a context where tons of things line up, where the "is it what it is?" question is generally yes, and you don't need to think much about it - Communism is an Ordered system. As to Chaos, that's again in a context of great quantity, where that same question can only be answered by "no, none of this lines up, nothing makes sense, and I need to reassess my standards of inquiry if I want to understand what's going on here". Capitalism could be considered such a Chaotic mess. Oh, oops, looks like elements of the left and right got mixed up there. Do you think if they love each other selflessly it will work out? As to why the left and right can be considered chaotic and ordered, this comes down to morality - today, the political left recognizes no moral order, in general, except that of perpetual grievance hierarchies. Today's political right, for its part, recognizes a moral order based similarly on self-sacrifice - to some patriotic duty to uplift those who otherwise would perish, rather than to the feelings of the moment. This has a lot to do with the emotional way children of either sex are raised: boys are often exposed to more stringent, rules-based learning, and are aware of the hard knocks that life can throw their way. The only way to account for these is to erect order. As to girls, they are often instructed on a fantasy play level - the only way to get what you want in life is to make sure everyone feels good. Neither sex is taught that their worth comes from their skill in navigating reality, but rather their skill in giving others what they expect, for no reason other than they expect it. I won't get into the new trend of Gender-Bending children, since that's worth an entire book. I'm only lightly caricaturing these trends, for simplicity's sake, but the results of a few generations of this, in conjunction with the arbitrary nature of childhood education is manifest around us in the US. And everyone feels like they are doing the right thing, especially because they are doing it for other people, at their own personal expense, just as they were taught at an early age. Your friend is right. Everything we do is for some personal benefit, including selfless action. It is a biological imperative, after all, one which systems of thought like Buddhism have attempted to overcome, with the result being the numerous mummified corpses in icy caves in Tibet. The question after this Metaphysical reality of human nature has been established is whether or not the actions and the goals undertaken are actually going to be of real, measuarable, long-term benefit to that person. See my above comment on Soldat's paraphrasing of Peterson's Chaos/Order alchemy for my thoughts on how that pertains to interpersonal relationships. I'm sure your friend would have something similar to say, assuming he's a generally libertarian-oriented kind of person. As to underdeveloped countries and trade with them - or business that to business in those countries - as unfair, please call me when you've actually learned how business operate, and whether you can identify a problem with state-run or state-protected industry monopolizations, like those in play with OPEC, or the influence on business practices of political action groups for special interest groups representing labor, minority representation, women, immigrants, religious groups, or any other group you might be able to think of. Same goes for your claim that it's a 'pretty flawed idea' to base normative claims on Man's nature. It's so wrong it hurts - the center, the boomers, are leftists, at heart. The tea party movement, which everyone thought was a big grassroots push for capitalism, small government, and deregulation was really just a bunch of ****ing boomers who wanted their welfare and healthcare benefits to be paid off, and didn't want them to be cut. As soon as they got their way, they Tea Party disappeared. That same sentiment largely underscored the Trump Effect, too - they want "Welfare for Me, but not for Thee (Immigrants and Minorities)". As soon as they get their Medicaid and their AARP Benefits, they shut up and let the "left" work their charms. So, really, if you want an accurate picture of what the political "spectrum" looks like, you ought to ask yourself who wants the political right to other people's things without earning them. That's the left - Marxists, Neo-Marxists, Post-Modernists, Post-Post-Modernists, SJWs, TERFs, Republicans, Conservatives, NeoCons, Boomers, Democratic Socialists, Tone Police, Big Tech Centrists, Hollywood Liberals, Critical Theorists, and the garden variety "someone's gotta do something about this". I will concede that you're right about the Biden Boomers, for the same reason that the Tea Party fizzled. As soon as Biden burns out, the Democrats will be free to pivot to the true nature of their underlying philosophy, which can be found in the Bernies, AOCs, and Harrises of the world, which is a lust for power, voluntarily surrendered at the point of a gun loaded only with the NATO Standard Ammunition "unearned guilt". Which, if you refer to my earlier comments on education, you'll see is given out in lifetime supply packages to children too young to understand the nature of the weapon. Did someone say "common-sense gun control"?
Hahhahahahaha I guess I can see it. It does have a chapel and a pit portal in it. However the pit portal is only a thing since budget wouldn't let me make light beam that goes under the castle an up at rocket spawn.
Now might be a good time to mention that my friend believes we should kill everyone's pets because pets are useless, and then use them to feed the poor. In general, he never really ever considers social or psychological effects in any of his arguements. You'd get on well with him though I'd imagine. He's certainly interesting to debate with
No, I don’t think I’d get on well with him, not if he advocates pet genocide. If anything, that’s evidence to support the myopia of his views as a result of holding the ‘biological benefit’ premise from a utilitarian and/or statist perspective. If that’s why you think his ideas are bad, then I would agree with you - but you ought to understand that what I’m saying has nothing to do with something as outlandish and cruel as killing pets, and everything to do with a person’s chosen purpose in life, and whether or not that will actually pan out positively for them, and why/why not. So, you still haven’t explained why you think the general premise of biological benefit is wrong, or in which cases. But if you insist on mentally identifying me with your *friend* who *wants to kill pets* because you want to avoid making a mistake in defense of your unarticulated ideas on a dead forum, that’s totally up to you dude.